HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-238 - 32 Montana Cres - A 2024-038Staff Report
Development Services Department www.kitchener.co
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: May 21, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-741-2200 ext. 7765
PREPARED BY: Sheryl Rice Menezes, Senior Planning Technician,
519-741-2200 ext. 7844
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 7
DATE OF REPORT: May 13, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-238
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-038 - 32 Montana Crescent
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning By-law 2019-051
That Minor Variance Application A2024-038 for 32 Montana Crescent requesting
relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051:
i) Section 4.12.3 g) to permit a building floor area of 122 square metres instead of
the maximum permitted 80 square metres;
ii) Section 4.12.3 i) to permit a lot width of 7.3 metres instead of the minimum
required rather than the required 13.1 metres;
iii) Section 4.12.3 1) a) to permit a shed roof with a building height of 4.8 metres
instead of the maximum permitted 4.5 metres;
iv) Section 4.12.3 n) to permit an unobstructed walkway of 0.94 metres at one
pinch point instead of the minimum required 1.1 metres; and
v) Section 4.14.4 c) to permit a deck attached to the Additional Dwelling Unit
(ADU) (Detached) to have a rear yard setback of 1.4 metres instead of the
minimum required 4 metres;
to facilitate the construction of an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Detached) at the
rear of a semi-detached dwelling which is proposed to contain two (2) dwelling units
for a total of three (3) dwelling units on the property, generally in accordance with
drawings prepared by the applicant, Robert Davis, dated April 23, 2024, and
submitted with this application, BE APPROVED.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 45 of 129
Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-074
That Minor Variance Application A2024-038 for 32 Montana Cres requesting relief
from the following sections of Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-
074:
i) Section 4.12.3 g) to permit a lot width of 7.3 metres instead of the minimum
required rather than the required 10.5 metres;
ii) Section 4.12.3 h) to permit a shed roof with a building height of 4.8 metres
instead of the maximum permitted 4.5 metres;
iii) Section 4.12.3 n) to permit an unobstructed walkway of 0.94 metres at one
pinch point instead of the minimum required 1.1 metres; and
iv) Section 4.14.4 c) to permit a deck attached to the Additional Dwelling Unit
(ADU) (Detached) to have a rear yard setback of 1.4 metres instead of the
minimum required 4 metres;
to facilitate the construction of an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Detached) at the
rear of a semi-detached dwelling which is proposed to contain two (2) dwelling units
for a total of three (3) dwelling units on the property, generally in accordance with
drawings prepared by the applicant, Robert Davis, dated April 23, 2024, and
submitted with this application, BE APPROVED, subject to the following:
This Minor Variance shall become effective only at such time as By-law 2024-074
(Enabling 4 Units in 2019-051) comes into force and effect, pursuant to section 34
(30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P 13, as amended, at such time the variance
shall be deemed to have come into force and effect as of the final date of this
decision.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to review a minor variance application to facilitate the
construction of an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Detached) in the rear yard.
• The key finding of this report is that the requested minor variances meet all the four
tests of the Planning Act.
• There are no financial implications.
• Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising
that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the
application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property
and this report was posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee of Adjustment meeting.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
Page 46 of 129
Figure 1: Aerial photo
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the north side of Montana Crescent which backs onto
Highland Rd W.
It is identified as `Community Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and is designated `Low
Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in City's 2014 Official Plan.
The property is zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-
051.
The purpose of the application is for minor variances to both Zoning By-law 2019-051 and
Zoning By-law 2019-051, as amended by By-law 2024-074, to permit the construction of
an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Detached) in the rear yard. It is noted that the existing
semi-detached dwelling will be renovated to have one (1) Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU)
(Attached). This will result in a total of three (3) dwelling units on the subject property.
Page 47 of 129
Figure 2: View of property from street.
REPORT:
Planning Comments:
In considering the four tests for the minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990 Chap. P 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following
comments:
General Intent of the Official Plan
The property is designated `Low Rise Residential'. The intent of the land use designation is to
encourage residential intensification and/or redevelopment which includes additional dwelling
units to respond to changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce
infrastructure and service costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of
existing community infrastructure. The variances will meet the general intent of the Official
Plan.
General Intent of the Zonina By-law
The intent of the building floor area regulation is to ensure the detached ADUs do not
dominate the rear yard. Under the existing by-law regulations there is a maximum building
floor area. However, under the amending by-law there is no maximum floor area. The
massing is regulated by the height and footprint on the property. Though the GFA of 122
Page 48 of 129
square metres is over the maximum permitted 80 square metres required under the existing
bylaw, it is noted that there is a mezzanine inside the unit. Staff are on the opinion that the
intent of the existing by-law is met and a variance for this requirement will not be needed
once amending By-law 2024-074 comes into effect.
The intent of the lot width regulations is to ensure there is sufficient width for additional units.
The subject lot is pie -shaped which results in a lot width of 7.3 metres at the 4.5 metre
setback. As the lot widens there is more than the required lot width, especially in the rear
yard where detached ADU will be located.
The intent of the building height regulation is to ensure that the detached ADU does not
dominate the lot with a height greater than the main building. Because of grade difference on
the lot, the detached ADU is located at a lower grade and is not higher than the main
building. See Figure 3 below.
VaVIVA P
The intent of the minimum walkway width of 1.1 metres is to ensure that emergency services
can access the detached ADU without obstruction. Fire Prevention staff have confirmed that
the proposed variance for the walkway at the pinch point of going over the porch is
supportable.
The intent of the minimum rear yard setback for a deck over 0.6 above grade is to ensure
that the use of the deck as an amenity area does not negatively impact the neighbouring
properties. As shown on the aerial photo above (Figure 1), the property backs onto Highland
Road West and there is no impact on the neighbours nor the streetscape because the
vegetation along Highland Road West.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
As noted above, the detached ADU will be setback in the rear yard of the subject property.
There is sufficient lot area and width to support the dwelling unit. Because of grade, the
height of the building does not impact the main building or abutting properties. Staff are of the
opinion that the effects of the variances are minor.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Aaaroariate Develoament or Use of the Land.
Building and/or Structure?
Staff are of the opinion that the variances for the detached ADU are desirable and
appropriate for the property and provide a gentle form of intensification which can be
considered appropriate for the use of the property and compatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood.
Page 49 of 129
Environmental Planning Comments:
Care should be taken during construction to not impact the root zone of trees on and/or
adjacent to the property. It is recommended that temporary protective fencing be installed
(as per Appendix `E' of the City's Tree Management Policy) prior to construction
commencing.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No concerns.
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit
for the detached additional dwelling unit is obtained prior to construction. Please contact
the Building Division at build ing(a-)kitchener.ca with any questions.
Engineering Division Comments:
No concerns.
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
There is an existing City owned street tree that may be impacted by the proposed
construction. If this tree(s) cannot be protected to City standards throughout construction
as per Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law, full compensation and
replacement is expected. As part of the required Building Permit a plan showing adequate
tree protection should be submitted.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application.
Region of Waterloo Comments:
There are no conditions for the above application. However, the applicants are advised
that there would be impacts from road noise from Highland Road West to the existing and
proposed dwellings/buildings. The applicants are responsible for ensuring no
environmental noise impacts from/on the proposed development.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance
of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice sign was placed on the property
advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises
interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the
Page 50 of 129
Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30
metres of the subject property.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act
• Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020)
• A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020
• Regional Official Plan
• Official Plan (2014)
• Zoning By-law 2019-051 and By-law 2024-074
Page 51 of 129
May 2, 2024
Connie Owen
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
P.O. Box 1118
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor
Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4449
www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca
File No.: D20-20/
VAR KIT GEN
(1) 58 KIT/ KITCHENER SOUTH DISTRICT PARK
(3) VAR KIT/ 42 HAZELGLEN DRIVE A&F GREENFIELD
HOMES LTD
(4) VAR KIT/ 50 CONFEDERATION DRIVE WATERLOO
CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
(10) 58 KIT/ 125 SEABROOK DRIVE BUILT BY
ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION INC
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting May 21, 2024, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1) A 2024 - 033 — 1955 Fischer Hallman Road — No concerns.
2) A 2024 - 034 — 215 Morgan Avenue — There are no conditions for the above
application. However, the applicants are advised that there would be impacts from
road noise & railway noise/vibration to the existing and the proposed
dwellings/building. The applicants are responsible for ensuring no environmental
noise impacts from/on the proposed development.
3) A 2024 - 035 — 42 Hazelglen Drive — No concerns.
4) A 2024 - 036 — 50 Confederation Drive — No concerns.
5) A 2024 - 037 — 67 Blucher Street — No concerns.
6) A 2024 - 038 — 32 Montana Crescent — There are no conditions for the above
application. However, the applicants are advised that there would be impacts from
road noise from Highland Road West to the existing and proposed
dwellings/buildings. The applicants are responsible for ensuring no environmental
noise impacts from/on the proposed development.
Document Number: 4667381
Page 1 of 2
Page 52 of 129
7) A 2024 - 039 — 114 Brandon Avenue — No concerns.
8) A 2024 - 040 — 39 Turner Avenue — No concerns.
9) A 2024 - 041 — 133 Max Becker Drive — No concerns.
10) A 2024 - 042 — 125 Seabrook Drive — No concerns.
11) A 2024 - 043 — 500 Stauffer Drive — No concerns.
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the
provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor
thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these
developments prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site
is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply.
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
Joginder Bhatia
Transportation Planner
C (226) 753-0368
CC:
Mariah Blake, City of Kitchener
CofA(o)Kitchener. ca
2
Page 53 of 129
r°1ru,*rniostra ion Centre: �1OO r'iyle P(r. iarox /,19 C)NJ v1 I R I,` 6
P hone: ) 0) 2 1'Foil firee-I 1 900 4/"?), Fm 1�l 62 1 wwwg r'arid Ir'hII'ver,ca
x
May 6, 2024
Mariah Blake
Secretary -Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Mariah Blake,
Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting – May 21, 2024
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-033
1955 Fischer Hallman Road
A 2024-034
215 Morgan Avenue
A 2024-035
42 Hazelglen Drive
A 2024-036
50 Confederation Drive
A 2024-037
67 Blucher Street
A 2024-038
32 Montana Crescent
A 2024-039
114 Brandon Avenue
A 2024-040
39 Turner Avenue
A 2024-041
133 Max Becker Drive
A 2024-042
125 Seabrook Drive
Application for Consent
B 2024-008 7 Upper Mercer Street, Units B6 & B7
via email
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff has reviewed the above -noted
applications.
GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above applications. The subject properties do
not contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, or
valley slopes. The properties are not subject to Ontario Regulation 41/24 and, therefore, a
permission from GRCA is not required.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at aherremana-grand river. ca or 519-
621-2763 ext. 2228.
Sincerely,
__ 9-"—
Andrew Herreman, CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
N4(ir�irr r tai �:.c7i seI,vaIion �.)nhflira, r�Eac�.���e� II Ince OIIP Ill IO'r �6 b onseivcit'on f',flt )o[c� ic's ( I IId — Al(110 w, ItiVP�,
Page 54 of 129
Sent- Wednesday, May 15, 2024 2:57 PM
To: Committee of Adjustment (SM) <C'onwirnitt&eqf,Akd U rp11 in 2,LJ'tdheineir,qa>
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting - May 21
IYOU don't often get ernad f rornaa!
I ...... . .
I am writing the Committee in relation to the proposed variance changes at 32 Montana Cres in
Kitchener. I am the owner of the adjacent property,��� which I have owned since
2005. 1 have resided at this residence for many years and recently have made it available as, a rental
property and have been diligent in keeping the property at a high standard to help maintain: the
neighbourhood feet. I regularly keep in touch with my neighbours and ensure the property is a
positive, impact on the neighbouirhood.
The property at 32 Montana Cres was constructed as a single-family semi-detached dwelling which
was converted to a duipLex a few years back. Since this time the property has not been well
maintained and violated many property standard by -Laws. This property was not designed to house
numerous family units and adding another unit will further degrade the property, the
neighbourhood atmosphere and will likely result in additional property standard violations. The
current owner has been negligent in maintaining the property ands in my opinion is not suited to
manage any rental property Let alone a larger multi -residential building. Neighbours have taken,
time to speak with the tenants and owners to rectify some of the property, standard violations
however no improvement has been, made in years.
Some of the most notable violations are as follows:
For months at a time the property regularly has garbage spread out over the driveway and
property, including uncovered / unsecured waste containers, an, abandoned: water heater,
gasoline can ands an old car battery. The waste has attracted many rodents (rats, skunks
and raccoons), the water heater is unsightly and poses a safety risk if it fell over on a child
or delivery person and the car battery and gasoline cans have a significant risk of leaking
acids, lead contaminates and hydrocarbons into the soil.
The grass areas of the property is rarely cut (only 2-3 times Last year) and over grown
vegetation causing damage to the surrounding fences has been Left until neighbours are
forced to tidy it up.
The driveway iis single width and: functionally does not allow for proper parking of multiple
housing units. The driveway abuts the driveway at 30 Montana, making two single width
driveways side-by-side. In the past vehicles have often been illegally parked on the Lawn, or
when blocked in the vehicles exit by curving around parked vehicles on the driveway of 30
M':ontaina, this has caused damage to vehicles, noted and reported to the: tenants. The
driveway is not suitable for multi -unit parking.
Nloise violations for numerous Late night parties. This is, negatively impacted the
neighbouring children and the enjoyment of the surrounding properties. Kitchener By-law
can confirm the number of calls for this property,
Some further concerns I have with: the City making a, zoning variance for this building areas follows.,
• Adjacent housing pricing will) decrease due to the over crowding of this property.
Purchasers imiake life -time investments into housing with the undeirstanding that the City
zoning will keep the neighbourhood in a similar condition and neighbour appearance.
Changing zoning, requirements will have a negative impact on property values.
• Over crowding, of a small property like this will increase the parking and vehicle traffic for
this property and the City has not widlenedl the street to accommodate this traffic. If zoning
is, to be modified the City must first upgrade infrastructure to accommodate such changes.
• M':onitaina Cres has no sidewalks and has community mailbox service which: means
residents, including many children, must navigate the street to move through the
neighbourhood. Increasing traffic and increasing the need for street parking by allowing
Page 55 of 129
overcrowding of a property will create safety hazards and goes against the Region's Vision
Zero.
• Changing the existing property setback of 32 Montana will negatively alter the enjoyment,
lighting (both natural and man made) and sightlines of the adjacent properties. Any
additional structure should fall within single level construction to fall in line with existing
outbuildings (sheds and garages). The proposal for 32 Montana is set too far back and too
tall.
The City has a very limited supply of smaller residential homes with attached green space,
such as the type of homes on Montana Cres. Purchasers or renters looking for a home that
is affordable and has a yard is in high demand. These properties allow residents with pets
and/or children a safe and enclosed outdoor space, something condo buildings often do
not. Allowing 32 Montana to develop its land is essentially converting this property into
more of a condo style or multi -residential dwelling, something the City already has
significant construction volumes. The City does not need more residential units but homes,
places where people can live and this includes the enjoyment of an outdoor space.
I question the previous building inspections completed by the City's Building department
for the current duplex modifications. Either the inspector missed some items or changes
were made after final inspection. I would strongly support a re-evaluation of the
compliance of the duplex standards. One of the noted concerns is the new side entrance
has improper riser heights from the precast step to the door threshold, no landing, handrail,
the gas venting is also a trip hazard and the venting spears too close a building opening. See
photo attached. Perhaps before allowing further construction the existing building code
compliance should be achieved.
Overall, I think it is very clear that making a zoning variance for the current proposal at 32 Montana
is harmful to the surrounding community and property owners and only benefits the owner of 32
Montana Cres. If these owner want to expand their rental investment portfolio I strongly suggest to
purchase another property that can accommodate their development dreams without ruining the
adjacent homes. I also believe the past compliance of the owner clearly displays that they are not
well suited to manage a multi -unit residential property and approving it will be reckless. Lastly the
safety concerns raised and the lack of proper infrastructure clearly shows the City is not prepared
for this type of development nor the precedent it will set for this neighbourhood and that approving
the zoning variance will affirm that the City and this Committee are now aware and accepting of
these risks and financial loses.
Thankyou for hearing my concerns,
Joel Van Es
I can be reached at
and
Page 56 of 129
Page 57 of 129